The bill, called the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2026, would impose an annual 2% tax on the net worth of households and trusts over $50 million, and an additional 1% tax on the wealth of billionaires. To deter the ultra-rich from leaving the U.S. to avoid the new tax, the bill also proposes a 40% “exit tax” on anyone worth more than $50 million who renounces their American citizenship.
You can run; but you can’t hide.
The bill is similar to one that Warren introduced in 2021. Since then, the fortunes of America’s wealthiest families have soared, while millions of low- and middle-income families continue to face an affordability crunch.
the richest top 0.1% has seen its share of American wealth nearly triple from 7% to 20% between the late 1970s and 2016, while the bottom 90% has seen its share of wealth decline from 35% to 25% in that same period.
Harvard economist Jason Furman, who led President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, concurred that raising wages is a better goal than tamping down prices — but said that income growth has actually been good recently.
I bet not as well as CEO’s pay increases.
“I think we are seeing more bad economic ideas than before, and I think some of it is because people are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t have a solution,” Furman said.
Oh yes. The rich get richer and the poor poorer. Cannot fix that. Harvard huh. Perhaps the best and brightest don’t inhabit ivy league schools.
How will you value my 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card? How about my Blue Dog painting? Force me to sell it? What happens to the value of any collectible when the market gets flooded? More sellers than buyers?
Envy, jealousy, and greed are not a good basis for legislation.
Are you a mainstream media journalist? All the news that’s fit to ditch?
Here’s what is ACTUALLY SAYS, not what you made it say: would impose an annual 2% tax on the net worth of households and trusts over $50 million
See? Big difference. Your penny ante baseball cards won’t be affected. If you were worth over 50 mill you wouldn’t notice the difference anyway. As far as What happens to the value of any collectible when the market gets flooded? More sellers than buyers? Nothing. Let the market set its market-price. There is no “value.” It’s only what someone is willing to pay.
I was arguing with one of my buddies about raising taxes on the wealthy. He kept bringing up the same ol’ tired arguments. “Wealthy people work hard for their money!” “Wealthy people won’t work hard if they have to pay higher taxes!” “Envy, jealousy, and greed are not good reasons to raise taxes!” Yada, yada, yada.
When I asked him how much he paid in federal taxes the year before, he replied that it was well over $20,000. That happened to be the same year a certain self-reported billionaire’s tax information was leaked…showing that he paid a whopping $750.
I asked my buddy - “Do you think it’s fair for you to pay $20,000, when a self-reported billionaire only has to pay $750?”
Raising taxes, closing loopholes, and the vast number of tax law changes that could be made are about fairness; not envy, not jealousy, not greed.
I’d argue that it’s those vices that are the obstacles to any meaningful tax law change.
I think the “baseball card” mention is just for fun, clearly there are assets which the X-millionaires and billionaires will own which can take things off the public register. I could buy a Rembrant maybe, or some kind of monster diamond, or whatever. How is the government going to track the “value” of that, and if I’m anywhere near the $50m threshold this becomes a worthwhile endeavor: pay $0 (extra) or pay $1,000,000 because I’ve tripped over the line.
There are areas which we tax which are not perfectly defined: property taxes, for instance, but there is some reasonable method of ascertainment (comparables) and if people cheat, well it’s found out when the property is sold.
I think this tax scheme is not well thought out; if I can find multiple dodges at first glance, imagine what tax lawyers and accounting types can do with it. But then I’m all for an extremely simplified tax structure: if you get money and use it as “income”, it’s taxable (and no, I don’t care if it’s a loan). If you have business expenses, they are deductible.
Some sort of absolute “gross receipts tax”, so no matter how you receive it, there’s a tax on it. A few deductions for “living” as there is now: a general deduction everybody gets. After that, a progressive rate that ends up in the 40’s. Argue about the numbers, fine.
If the rich pay less in taxes, the middle class have to pay more to make up the difference.
Once I understood that at about the age of 30 and figured out that about the dumbest thing you can do in America, tax-wise, is to work for wage & salary income, I started to focus on investing and stopped worrying about working uncompensated overtime to make myself “more promotable” at work.
For 2025, a married couple can take about $150,000/yr in qualified dividends and capital gains in the 0% bracket, assuming that’s their only income. A couple with $150,000/yr in wage and salary income would pay about $25,000 in federal income tax and $11,500 in FICA for a total of $36,500. It’s nuts that people who aren’t in the Top 1% or 2% are voting for this.
We really need to bring the idle rich up to the tax rate of a schoolteacher or firefighter.
Actually, what I take from this example - since a collectible is only worth what someone is willing and able to pay; there is too much money wandering around looking for things to be spent on.
We confiscate all of the U.S. billionaire’s money, reported to be $7.3 trillion.
I believe we had a deficit of 1.78 trillion in fy 2025.
We keep the 7.3 trillion in a rainy-day fund to offset the deficits. It only lasts for 4.1 years if the deficit stays the same. And this doesn’t reduce our current debt.
Taxing the rich more is great, but it’s not going to solve our deficit problem.
Agreed, deficit spending must be addressed. Raising taxes alone won’t fix it. Spending cuts alone won’t fix it. Our long term fiscal health depends on both.
We do not have a deficit problem. The bonds underpin the financial system. They pour a constant interest or yield into the markets. The rest of the financial system is built on top of them.
We have a reinvestment problem. We are not growing the GDP to create economies of scale in the US. That could be incentivized…pay the taxman or reinvest.
Here is how a wealth tax hurts the middle class. Take Jeff Bezos/Amazon. People look at him and think he is a billionaire rolling in cash. Or Warren Buffet. Or Mark Cuban. Or pick you billionaire. All these people don’t have billions in a checking account. Their wealth is tied up in their business. They are not that liquid or at least to the extent that you can take 2% off the top every year. So what happens. They have to start selling their business/stock. So increase supply, no change in demand, what happens to the price? It goes down. Who cares, they are worth a little less. Where does the middle class comes in? What do you think your pension/401k/retirement is invested in? I don’t own Amazon, I own an SP500 index. You own Amazon. So now your retirement/pension/etc takes a hit. Who is more likely to to survive a decrease in value? A billionaire or a middle class individual?
And talking about Warren’s proposal specifically, it would be one thing if you took all the estimated trillions and paid off the country’s deficit. She wants to take the trillions and increase spending. That is guaranteeing more problems down the road.
Plus, if a wealth tax was so great, why have the majority of countries that tried it have dropped it? Plus, remember, politicians are infamously bad at math. Remember the previous “millionaires tax” proposal would actually increase taxes on a couple that were a policeman and school teacher.
